The thread got derailed long ago. It no longer has anything to do with utilitarianism. Not that it was ever very focused on utilitarianism.
To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
Right. That's another usage of the word "need". But the usage I'm trying to indicate by attaching the adjective "real" as in "real need" or "really need", is an intrinsic general need, such as the need for food, as opposed to a mere "want" or "desire", such as a chocolate eclair.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 9:28 amNeeds are simply conditions that are necessary to achieve something one wants to achieve. That doesn't imply that you can actually achieve any and everything you want to. But nevertheless, needs are simply conditions necessary for a goal or desire or preference one wants to achieve. So, for example, if you want to fly under your own power, unaided by any devices, simply by flapping your arms, you'd need to have a particular anatomical make-up, a particular sort of physiology. Those would be conditions necessary to achieve unaided flight by simply flapping your arms. You're not going to have the required anatomy simply by desiring it, but nevertheless, that's what you'd need to achieve unaided flight.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 7:30 am
Like you say, "An individual could desire anything imaginable". However, one cannot "really need" everything that is imaginable. That's why needs are intrinsic and desires are choices.
People often construe "real needs" as what's necessary to remain living, to flourish, etc. But those are only needs if one desires to remain living and flourish (in those particular ways). Otherwise one has no such needs. Needs hinge on wants. They're the conditions necessary to achieve something.
In mediation, one of the goals is to get to what the two parties actually need, which can both be satisfied, even though neither gets everything that they want.
In your example of the person choosing not to live, it reminds us of Michael Gazzaniga's comment about the power of human beliefs:
Michael Gazzaniga wrote: "we humans have cognition and beliefs of all kinds, and the possession of a belief trumps all the automatic biological process and hardware, honed by evolution, that got us to this place. Possession of a belief, though a false one, drove Othello to kill his beloved wife, and Sidney Carton to declare, as he voluntarily took his friend’s place at the guillotine, that it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done."
Gazzaniga, Michael S.. Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain (pp. 2-3). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
A belief may be false. A person may believe they need one thing when they really need something else.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
No, that is a reflex response. There's probably is a grey area between reflexes and drives, but bleeding would not be an example of that, but the drive to breathe would be. One soon finds the drive to breathe when one can't but breathing is also obviously largely reflexive.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 9:30 amSo would you say that every biological fact is a drive? Is bleeding out if you're cut in certain ways a drive? It's a biological fact that you'll bleed out if you're cut in certain ways.
Does this relate to utilitarianism or are you just seeing where the chat leads?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
lol--there's no other sense.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 2:37 pm Right. That's another usage of the word "need". But the usage I'm trying to indicate by attaching the adjective "real" as in "real need" or "really need", is an intrinsic general need, such as the need for food, as opposed to a mere "want" or "desire", such as a chocolate eclair.
Let's say that everyone extant wants to die of starvation. Regardless of this, you want to claim that there's a "real need" for food.
How would food be a "real need" in that case?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
Re your latter question, it has to do with utilitarianism because utilitarianism was being framed as at least partially hinging on biological drives.Greta wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 7:31 pmNo, that is a reflex response. There's probably is a grey area between reflexes and drives, but bleeding would not be an example of that, but the drive to breathe would be. One soon finds the drive to breathe when one can't but breathing is also obviously largely reflexive.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 9:30 am
So would you say that every biological fact is a drive? Is bleeding out if you're cut in certain ways a drive? It's a biological fact that you'll bleed out if you're cut in certain ways.
Does this relate to utilitarianism or are you just seeing where the chat leads?
So if you don't want to breathe--you want to die of suffocation, and you have a reflex to breathe as you're trying to die of suffocation, is breathing still a drive?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
The real need for food is not a subjective opinion, but an objective observation. Observe the person deprived of food. Note that their body deteriorates. Note that they cease functioning. This happens whether the person chooses to die or has a keen desire to live. It is not a matter of wants or desires. It is a matter of what a living organism requires to continue. Food is a real need of every biological organism.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:36 amlol--there's no other sense.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 2:37 pm Right. That's another usage of the word "need". But the usage I'm trying to indicate by attaching the adjective "real" as in "real need" or "really need", is an intrinsic general need, such as the need for food, as opposed to a mere "want" or "desire", such as a chocolate eclair.
Let's say that everyone extant wants to die of starvation. Regardless of this, you want to claim that there's a "real need" for food.
How would food be a "real need" in that case?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
As I suggested above, breathing is special, being both a reflex and a drive. To parse this example from bleeding, one can breathe in an appetitive way, eg. "Ahhhh, how about that fresh country air!". Bleeding does not have that same volitional, or appetitive, aspect.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:39 amRe your latter question, it has to do with utilitarianism because utilitarianism was being framed as at least partially hinging on biological drives.Greta wrote: ↑October 11th, 2020, 7:31 pm
No, that is a reflex response. There's probably is a grey area between reflexes and drives, but bleeding would not be an example of that, but the drive to breathe would be. One soon finds the drive to breathe when one can't but breathing is also obviously largely reflexive.
Does this relate to utilitarianism or are you just seeing where the chat leads?
So if you don't want to breathe--you want to die of suffocation, and you have a reflex to breathe as you're trying to die of suffocation, is breathing still a drive?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
Right. And what of that? How do we get from those facts to "Food is a need" versus "Food is not a need."Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 1:56 pm The real need for food is not a subjective opinion, but an objective observation. Observe the person deprived of food. Note that their body deteriorates. Note that they cease functioning.
The person deprived of food has their body deteriorate. So deprivation of food is a need to have a body deteriorate (from food deprivation), right? And ingesting food is a need to not have a body deteriorate. Right?
So we have two options: bodies deteriorating and bodies not deteriorating. There are opposing needs for each possibility there. How does one requirement, for one possibility, amount to a "real need" and the other requirement, for the contradictory possibility, does not?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
Wait, you're saying that someone couldn't have a disposition where they'd go, "Ahh, how about that bleeding"?Greta wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 7:00 pmAs I suggested above, breathing is special, being both a reflex and a drive. To parse this example from bleeding, one can breathe in an appetitive way, eg. "Ahhhh, how about that fresh country air!". Bleeding does not have that same volitional, or appetitive, aspect.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:39 am
Re your latter question, it has to do with utilitarianism because utilitarianism was being framed as at least partially hinging on biological drives.
So if you don't want to breathe--you want to die of suffocation, and you have a reflex to breathe as you're trying to die of suffocation, is breathing still a drive?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
Sure, that sentiment would describe a primary motivation of many American movies.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 7:11 pmWait, you're saying that someone couldn't have a disposition where they'd go, "Ahh, how about that bleeding"?Greta wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 7:00 pm
As I suggested above, breathing is special, being both a reflex and a drive. To parse this example from bleeding, one can breathe in an appetitive way, eg. "Ahhhh, how about that fresh country air!". Bleeding does not have that same volitional, or appetitive, aspect.
You cannot just go to, say, a graveyard, and just bleed (no, don't go there!). You have to be wounded.
Not the same.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
Life is good. The rest is common sense.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 7:10 pmRight. And what of that? How do we get from those facts to "Food is a need" versus "Food is not a need."Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 1:56 pm The real need for food is not a subjective opinion, but an objective observation. Observe the person deprived of food. Note that their body deteriorates. Note that they cease functioning.
The person deprived of food has their body deteriorate. So deprivation of food is a need to have a body deteriorate (from food deprivation), right? And ingesting food is a need to not have a body deteriorate. Right?
So we have two options: bodies deteriorating and bodies not deteriorating. There are opposing needs for each possibility there. How does one requirement, for one possibility, amount to a "real need" and the other requirement, for the contradictory possibility, does not?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
So if craving the biological fact (or the "reflex" as you say) counts as having an "appetitive" disposition towards it, and that's what makes something a drive, then any biological fact can be associated with or NOT associated with that craving, and thus could or could not be a drive, and it's going to depend on what an individual craves.Greta wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 7:22 pmSure, that sentiment would describe a primary motivation of many American movies.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 7:11 pm
Wait, you're saying that someone couldn't have a disposition where they'd go, "Ahh, how about that bleeding"?
You cannot just go to, say, a graveyard, and just bleed (no, don't go there!). You have to be wounded.
Not the same.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
If you're going to claim that "life is good" is a fact that somehow obtains independently of anyone thinking that, you'd need to explain how it obtains.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 8:27 pmLife is good. The rest is common sense.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 12th, 2020, 7:10 pm
Right. And what of that? How do we get from those facts to "Food is a need" versus "Food is not a need."
The person deprived of food has their body deteriorate. So deprivation of food is a need to have a body deteriorate (from food deprivation), right? And ingesting food is a need to not have a body deteriorate. Right?
So we have two options: bodies deteriorating and bodies not deteriorating. There are opposing needs for each possibility there. How does one requirement, for one possibility, amount to a "real need" and the other requirement, for the contradictory possibility, does not?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
Well, if life is not good, then everything else is irrelevant. The problem with subjectivity is that it is impossible to settle any disputes. There must be some piece of common ground.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 13th, 2020, 8:22 amIf you're going to claim that "life is good" is a fact that somehow obtains independently of anyone thinking that, you'd need to explain how it obtains.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: To what extent is utilitarianism morally acceptable?
But there's a problem with claiming objectivity when it's not the case for something.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 13th, 2020, 1:39 pmWell, if life is not good, then everything else is irrelevant. The problem with subjectivity is that it is impossible to settle any disputes. There must be some piece of common ground.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 13th, 2020, 8:22 am
If you're going to claim that "life is good" is a fact that somehow obtains independently of anyone thinking that, you'd need to explain how it obtains.
Maybe some things we simply can't settle aside from trying to let people do their own thing unhindered as much as possible.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023